Roopam Chaudhary and 3 Others Vs Addl. District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Roopam Chaudhary and 3 Others Vs Addl. District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

JSC Court concerned directed to consider and decide SCC Suit No.2 of 2019 (Roopam Chaudhary and others vs State Bank of India) expeditiously, preferably within six months from receipt of a certified copy of this order; petitioner entitled to raise all defences in the suit; both parties entitled to raise contentions regarding grant of damages/additional damages, all to be decided in accordance with law; Office directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any good ground for judicial interference, under Article 227, with the interlocutory order dated 25.07.2023 rejecting the application for recall/modification of the order dated 11.05.2022.

Court's answer

Because the order impugned (dated 25.07.2023) is an interlocutory order, no good ground for interference with it was found; the Article 227 writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition (Matters under Article 227 No. 1883 of 2024) was dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 6 — Pankaj Bhatia, J. (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:48547): Matters under Article 227 No. 1883 of 2024 filed by Roopam Chaudhary and 3 others (landlords) against the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 3, Unnao and another, challenging the order dated 25.07.2023 rejecting their application for recall/modification of the trial court's order dated 11.05.2022 (by which Applications 20-G for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and 27-Ga for physical possession had been rejected). Background: lease deeds executed with State Bank of India; lease-termination notice served on 10.04.2019; ejectment suit (SCC Suit No.2 of 2019) pending. Held: the order impugned being interlocutory, no good ground for interference was made out and the writ petition was dismissed (decided 19.8.2025). Directions issued: the JSC Court concerned to decide SCC Suit No.2 of 2019 expeditiously, preferably within six months of receiving a certified copy; petitioner free to raise all defences; both parties free to contest damages/additional damages; copy of the order to be sent to the court concerned.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48547

Court No. - 6

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1883 of 2024

Petitioner :- Roopam Chaudhary And 3 Others Respondent :- Addl. District Judge Court No. 3 Unnao And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhisht Saran,Alok Mehrotra,Rahul Kumar Kashyap

Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Saxena

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1 . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India.

2 . The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 25.07.2023 whereby, the application filed for recall or modification of the order dated 11.05.2022 has been rejected.

3 . It is stated that the petitioners are the landlord of the property in dispute and lease deeds were executed in between the petitioners and the Bank. It is also stated that on 10.04.2019, an notice for termination of the lease was served upon the Bank and also same was sent through registered post. Thereafter a suit for ejectment was filed by the petitioners. The petitioners also filed an application bearing no.20-G for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and Application-27-Ga for physical possession of the property in question, which were rejected by the trial court vide order dated 11.05.2022. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2022, the petitioners filed applications for recall/ modification of the order dated 11.05.2022, which was rejected by means of the impugned order.

4 . Considering the fact that the order impugned is an interlocutory order, no good ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed .

5 . The JSC Court concerned is directed to consider and decide the SCC Suit No.2 of 2019 (Roopam Chaudhary and others vs State Bank of India) expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

6 . The petitioner would be entitled to raise all the defences in the abovesaid suit, which shall be decided in accordance with

law.

7 . Both the parties would also be entitled to raise their contentions with regard to the grant of damages/ additional damages, which shall be decided in accordance with law.

8 . Office is directed to sent a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance.

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 akverma

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench